• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: Govt firesale

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Govt firesale"

Collapse

  • DimPrawn
    replied
    Originally posted by Moscow Mule View Post
    I read this bit;



    I didn't see anything in there about that needing to be adjusted for inflation or today's gold prices.
    Now you're assuming I read it.

    You just don't get it do you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
    If he sold the gold now, it would be a lot more than £2bn.

    Do you actually read anything?
    I read this bit;

    They have revealed that Bank of England officials had serious misgivings over the chancellor’s determination to sell 400 tons of bullion in a series of auctions between 1999 and 2002, when the price was at a 20-year low. Since then the price has almost trebled, meaning the decision cost the taxpayer an estimated £2 billion
    I didn't see anything in there about that needing to be adjusted for inflation or today's gold prices.

    Leave a comment:


  • DimPrawn
    replied
    Originally posted by Moscow Mule View Post
    Only £2Bn - isn't that a drop in the ocean of our national debt?
    If he sold the gold now, it would be a lot more than £2bn.

    Do you actually read anything?

    Leave a comment:


  • Moscow Mule
    replied
    Originally posted by DimPrawn View Post
    Perfect time for the financial genius Gordon Brown to sell off our massive store of gold, seeing prices are at an all time high, and use the money wisely to boost the economy.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1654931.ece

    Oh I see.

    Only £2Bn - isn't that a drop in the ocean of our national debt?

    Leave a comment:


  • DiscoStu
    replied
    Originally posted by Doggy Styles View Post
    Why does Brown need to sell off this stuff if, as he says, the recession is nearly over?
    Mostly because he's borrowed a tulip-load of money over the last few months to try and re-inflate the bubble.

    HTH

    Leave a comment:


  • Doggy Styles
    replied
    Why does Brown need to sell off this stuff if, as he says, the recession is nearly over?

    Leave a comment:


  • DimPrawn
    replied
    Perfect time for the financial genius Gordon Brown to sell off our massive store of gold, seeing prices are at an all time high, and use the money wisely to boost the economy.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1654931.ece

    Oh I see.

    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by Zippy View Post
    WHS
    Empolyers have no sensible reasons for objecting with all the technology available (and haven't had for years)
    Yes but the problem would be that if most people worked from home you would not need so many managers, and you won't get THOSE particular turkeys voting for Christmas...........sadly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tarquin Farquhar
    replied
    Originally posted by threaded View Post
    Spot on. So not only will the government not get any money, the future will pay for it.
    It was ever thus. Thomas Jefferson argued strongly that the United States should not have a national bank, because its actions would bind future governments. Now that seems to be the point.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheFaQQer
    replied
    Originally posted by TykeMerc View Post
    Flying cars


    Having seen the way some women drive, flying cars seem a REALLY bad idea!!

    Unless they just coast along slowly like a cloud, so the chance of any damage being caused is low...

    Leave a comment:


  • DimPrawn
    replied
    Here we have lot no 742, from HMR&C. One thousand coffee mugs with "I Love IR35" logos.

    Any starting bids at £300 the lot?

    Leave a comment:


  • threaded
    replied
    Originally posted by HairyArsedBloke View Post
    Meanwhile, in a secret boardroom somewhere in the City of London ....

    “Right then guys how do we fund this through bonds that we can flog back to the government? We’ve already got HAB on board to launder the cash offshore.”

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for things being in the private sector. It's the evil snot goblin's way of doing it that puts me off. The BoE's QE programme is just going straight back to the Treasury in the purchase of newly issued Gilts. It's like al Adin's "New Gilts for old".
    Spot on. So not only will the government not get any money, the future will pay for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • TykeMerc
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    That's because these people travel too far to work and then drive long time back - home working is the answer.
    In some cases yes, but in many it's people simply varying their working day. I live 16 miles from Leeds and 35 from Manchester city centres and there are plenty of people who do those distances. Leeds takes an hour plus between 7:00 and 9:30 simply because of weight of local traffic.
    Birmingham is at least as bad from every direction and London even worse.

    I agree home working would help a hell of a lot, but as I pointed out earlier that would require convincing an awful lot of "bums on seats" managers which simply won't happen. I would work from home a lot on my current gig, but that's simply not possible due to security reasons so I stay near site and do a 580 mile round trip every week or two. Quite a bit of my work is done on a network that simply isn't accessible across the normal internet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Zippy
    replied
    Originally posted by AtW View Post
    That's because these people travel too far to work and then drive long time back - home working is the answer.
    WHS
    Empolyers have no sensible reasons for objecting with all the technology available (and haven't had for years)

    Leave a comment:


  • AtW
    replied
    Originally posted by TykeMerc View Post
    the rush "hour" tends to start at 6:30-7:00 am in many parts and carried on to 9:30. At my last few client sites it's been common to see people in at 7:30-8:00 and leaving about 4:00, there are two in my current office who do just that.
    That's because these people travel too far to work and then drive long time back - home working is the answer.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X